KANUBHAI PRABHUDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners in this criminal revision application were convicted under sec. 12 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The prosecution case was that on 17-10-61 at about 8-30 P.M. one of them gave a two rupee note to the other and gave a bet of American Futures on the figure of 8. The prosecution led the evidence of the P.S.I. and a Panch witness but they did not produce any slip. A two rupee note however was found with one of the applicants. It was not a marked currency note as according to the prosecution one of the accused gave a bet to another accused. The P.S.I. deposed that he heard one of the accused utter the words Bombay 8 when he gave the two rupee note to the other accused. He was supported by the Panch. The evidence of these two witnesses was accepted and the two applicants were convicted under sec. 12(a) of the Gambling Act.

(2.) In revision it is contended: (1) that there is no corroboration to the evidence of the P.S.I. and the evidence of the Panch and reliance is placed on Emperor v. Harilal Gordhan 39 Bom. L R. 613 for the proposition that in gambling cases corroboration is necessary; (2) that this evidence is not admissible either under sec. 45 or sec. 49 of the Evidence Act; (3) that the question of admissibility under sec. 49 of the Evidence Act does not arise in this case as the Court has not to form an opinion as to the meaning of the words Bombay 8 but it is for the prosecution to prove the meaning of the expression Bombay 8 so as to make out a case of gambling against the accused; (4) that the P.S.I. has not deposed that he has special means of knowledge as to the meaning of the words Bombay 8 and that in any case he cannot give evidence that the words Bombay 8 mean that if the figure 8 is found to be the correct figure the person betting will get Rs. 16.00 or eight times the amount of bet; and (5) that no question has been put to the accused under sec. 342 as to whether the words Bombay 8 have the meaning given to them by the P.S.I.

(3.) In 39 Bom.L.R. 613 Sir John Beaumont C J. observed as follows :-